[ikerrin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_re_us/amtrak_congress

Our American friends are really starting to make us look bad!

[the dude]

wow, i'm shocked. forgive my ignorance but is $15B a lot of money for such an initiative? at the very least it's a step in the right direction. let's hope it catches on up here.

[thurmas]

for a country the size of america (300 million people)that is a tiny amount, per capita that would be about 1.6 billion in canada very small for any rail work to get done.

[wild wild west]

Heck, I'd settle for Calgary just GETTING passenger rail service in the first place!

[flar]

Regardless of the proportionality of population between our countries, you can build a lot of track and buy a lot of trains with $15B.

[Calgarian]

Heck, I'd settle for Calgary just GETTING passenger rail service in the first place!

here here

[Greco Roman]

Heck, I'd settle for Calgary just GETTING passenger rail service in the first place!

I will never fully understand why the northern Jasper route got preference over the southern Banff route (I know it involves politics, but still), but I am very glad to have the option of taking the train from Edmonton back home to Winnipeg :tup:

[SHOFEAR]

I will never fully understand why the northern Jasper route got preference over the southern Banff route (I know it involves politics, but still), but I am very glad to have the option of taking the train from Edmonton back home to Winnipeg :tup:


Because it runs on CN lines. Which go through Edmonton and for all intensive purposes is run out of Edmonton.

i think.

[Greco Roman]

Because it runs on CN lines. Which go through Edmonton and for all intensive purposes is run out of Edmonton.

i think.

Yes, that is definitely part of it, but I recall my dad (who has been working for VIA for 36 years now) that there was a push for this line to remain in service for some sort of political reasons of which I cannot recall at the moment. I'll have to ask him this question again the next time I speak with him.

[ikerrin]

for a country the size of america (300 million people)that is a tiny amount, per capita that would be about 1.6 billion in canada very small for any rail work to get done.

Your correct, 10% of the $15 billion would work out to $1.5 billion and in the last budget VIA rail got .... $.6 billion.

And it was the first infusion in years, and they have to generate 65% of their operating revenues from passengers compared to 50% for most urban transit in Canada (despite serving remote locations like chruchhill MB and Bathurst NB).

[1ajs]

churchill at least has the polar bears or via would not be going up there

[Biff]

I don't quite understand how VIA doesn't have service through Calgary. I remember 23 years ago i went Winnipeg to Vancouver with my parents and we most definitely went through Calgary. I know this because we had time to go up in the Calgary Tower. Great trip by the way, we had a room in the car next to the bubble car. I spent all of my time looking out that bubble at the mountains. Very impressive.

So they must have discontinued this service through Calgary?

[thurmas]

wow I knew our rail budget was small but I never new it was only 600 mil. Why is our rail budget 40% smaller than the cbc's budget, seems our priorities are wrong.(and they can't even keep the hockey night song, truly pathetic!)

[Rico Rommheim]

Because it runs on CN lines. Which go through Edmonton and for all intensive purposes is run out of Edmonton.

i think.

Although the CN HQ is in Montreal, many people have told me that it's really run out of its Chicago outfit, something to do with their larger activities down there.

[kirjtc2]

churchill at least has the polar bears or via would not be going up there

And Bathurst is only served because it happens to be on the line between Montreal and Halifax.

I had no idea Calgary didn't have Via service until I saw this thread. What a crime.

[wild wild west]

I don't quite understand how VIA doesn't have service through Calgary. I remember 23 years ago i went Winnipeg to Vancouver with my parents and we most definitely went through Calgary. I know this because we had time to go up in the Calgary Tower. Great trip by the way, we had a room in the car next to the bubble car. I spent all of my time looking out that bubble at the mountains. Very impressive.

So they must have discontinued this service through Calgary?

VIA did serve Calgary until about 1990, when a round of budget cuts took both Calgary and Regina off the VIA map. Why this route was targetted while other spur routes connecting much less populous cities (Jonquiere? Senneterre? White River? Churchill? Gaspe? Prince Rupert? - I've never even heard of a couple of these places!) were left intact is rather baffling to say the least. I have to agree with Kirjtc2's comment, it is indeed a crime. I would certainly hope that restoring service on the alternate route between Winnipeg and Vancouver that would connect via Regina, Calgary and Banff/Louise would be on the radar if VIA expands in the future.

[240glt]

As a kid my dad & I used to take the VIA from Salmon Arm to Golden and back (we're both train enthusiasts) The views from the rail line are completely different than from the highway. What a neat trip. I hope to be able to do it again someday.

[Boris2k7]

This document entitled Rail in Canada 2006 (http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/statcan/52-216-X/52-216-XIE2006000.pdf), from Statistics Canada, is particularly enlightening on the situation of rail in Canada. The information is particularly useful in showing the effect of the largest round of cuts, which happened in the mid-80's. It is a very large document with a huge amount of information in it, so here is a very small sampling of the tables.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1792/distributionofoperatingqi3.jpg

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/406/distributionofoperatingzg4.jpg

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/5206/totalassetsbycarrier200li6.jpg

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9853/propertyaccountstotalsbzx7.jpg

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/894/financialratios2006gu6.jpg

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5619/inventoryequipment2006dx9.jpg

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8105/lengthoftrackoperated20nx5.jpg

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5443/fuelconsumption2006me3.jpg

Source: Rail in Canada 2006 (http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/statcan/52-216-X/52-216-XIE2006000.pdf)


It think one conclusion we can draw from this data is that, at this rate, those places that www mentioned probably WILL lose their service in due time.

[ikerrin]

wow I knew our rail budget was small but I never new it was only 600 mil. Why is our rail budget 40% smaller than the cbc's budget, seems our priorities are wrong.(and they can't even keep the hockey night song, truly pathetic!)

In fact, their annually govt operating funding is only about $170 million. The $600 million was capital investment. They get less funding than many city transit operations. If it concerns you, I would recommend writing your MP and just letting her or him know that VIA is important to you.

[miketoronto]

I don't think you can just compare VIA to AMTRAK when it comes to funding or anything really.

VIA has a much better reputation and cost recovery, etc than AMTRAK.

The service VIA provides is probably better than what AMTRAK provides also, in similar areas.

As for the remote routes being kept and Calgary not. I think it has to do with access. Many of these places rely on the train for travel as roads are not good or the winter weather makes road travel bad.

[MistyMountainHop]

I don't think you can just compare VIA to AMTRAK when it comes to funding or anything really.

VIA has a much better reputation and cost recovery, etc than AMTRAK.

The service VIA provides is probably better than what AMTRAK provides also, in similar areas.

As for the remote routes being kept and Calgary not. I think it has to do with access. Many of these places rely on the train for travel as roads are not good or the winter weather makes road travel bad.

Plus VIA is way more expensive. :(

[ikerrin]

I don't think you can just compare VIA to AMTRAK when it comes to funding or anything really.

VIA has a much better reputation and cost recovery, etc than AMTRAK.

The service VIA provides is probably better than what AMTRAK provides also, in similar areas.

As for the remote routes being kept and Calgary not. I think it has to do with access. Many of these places rely on the train for travel as roads are not good or the winter weather makes road travel bad.

But that is exactly my point. VIA rail is very efficient with the limited funding that it receives ... ergo give it more funding. The fact that big cities like Calgary - Edmonton lack rail connections, or that only a couple of trains a day inconveniently connect Waterloo and Toronto suggests that more cash would lead to much greater ridership!

[ssiguy]

The reason why there is no Calgary/Regina service was pure politics. During the latter days of the Mulroney government they decided to cut back one of the western routes. Although the Regina/Calgary route was considerably busier it didn't have one important requirement.............Don Mazonkouski.

He was the Minister of Transportation at the time and he just happened to live near Vegreville which is on th Edmonton/Saskatoon route.

The route chosen had nothing to do with the needs of the passengers.
It is also quite obscene that you can't get from Cal/RD/Edm on a train.

[Policy Wonk]

When The Canadian was discontinued and VIA Rail ended service to Calgary nobody noticed or cared, cold hard truth. When the Dayliner service to Edmonton was discontinued there was slightly more interest but nobody went to bat for it. When the Dayliner service to Lethbridge was discontinued the only people who cared were the Calgary police because they had used it to ship vagrants out of town.

The problem with VIA Rail is two-fold, the first is institutional with the agency being fraught with horrible management that has never had a forward looking thought in its history. The second problem is external and is based on government policies that require VIA to opperate at a scope that is simply not practical and gives little serious evaluation to VIA requests that on the surface seem reasonable but might be a poor investment over all. The Conservatives just forked over money to extend the lives of their F40PH locomotives another 25 years, the problem is they aren't worth saving any more than a DC-8 is worth saving.

The single largest problem with VIA Rail is that with the exception of their GE Genesis locomotives their entire fleet is quite simply scrap metal and were scrap metal before VIA Rail even opperated them.

Their Budd equipment was saved from the scrap yard in the late 70's - CP had planned to begin scrapping it as early as 1966 but Ottawa rejected the termination petitions for the routes they opperated.
Their LRC equipment was rejected by Amtrak leaving Ottawa holding the bag, they were then pressed into service with VIA and have long since worn out.
The "new" Alstom cars were rescued from a British scrap yard having been rejected by both their original and subsequent owner due to their extreme weight and electrical requirements. There isn't a locomotive on the planet that would make the Alstom cars efficient.

VIA needs to take the money they intend to waste on the F40PH and LRC upgrades and buy some modern regional cars to pair with their GE Genesis locomotives, retrench along the coridor and send the rest if their fleet to the giant smelter in the sky. The federal government shouldn't be in the business of opperating tourist trains.

[Boris2k7]

^ To be fair though Policy Wonk, you are talking about an event that happened nearly twenty years ago. Since then, not only has the population grown quite significantly between Calgary and Edmonton, but the amount of traffic likely has as well. We are not only talking about more people but also different demographics. I think it is very unreasonable to suggest that people in 2008 feel the same way about rail as people in 1990.

JFYI:
1991 2006 CMA/CA
754,033 1,079,310 Calgary
841,132 1,034,945 Edmonton
58,145 82,772 Red Deer
1,653,310 2,198,027 Total

[canucklehead2]

The unfortunate problem I see is that we have unfriendly governments at both a provincial and federal level (at least if you live in Alberta) so increasing the funding for VIA Rail a crown corp isn't too likely, which is sad. Because there is great potential for rail in Western Canada not only in long-distance service but also high-speed city to city traffic... Obviously Edmonton to Calgary, but even Saskatoon-Regina which might seem way too small for such a system, but when you think about it a HST could create a single economic unit with 500,000 residents, which is much more marketable internationally for businesses as well as residents... Plus there is probably even potential in the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland-Spokane region as well, though service would obviously be a join venture between VIA and Amtrak...

[wild wild west]

As for the remote routes being kept and Calgary not. I think it has to do with access. Many of these places rely on the train for travel as roads are not good or the winter weather makes road travel bad.

You mean places like gaspe or Chicoutimi? Nonsense. Last I checked they have adequate road service.

As mentioned by others, the reason was politics.

[Policy Wonk]

^ To be fair though Policy Wonk, you are talking about an event that happened nearly twenty years ago. Since then, not only has the population grown quite significantly between Calgary and Edmonton, but the amount of traffic likely has as well. We are not only talking about more people but also different demographics. I think it is very unreasonable to suggest that people in 2008 feel the same way about rail as people in 1990.

And other than a superficial "oooh shiny" endoresement of HSR how has this been manifest?

Have enough VIA users from Ontario moved out here that a hypothetically opperating Dayliner to Edmonton would attract more than a few dozen passengers a week?

[wild wild west]

And other than a superficial "oooh shiny" endoresement of HSR how has this been manifest?

Have enough VIA users from Ontario moved out here that a hypothetically opperating Dayliner to Edmonton would attract more than a few dozen passengers a week?

I suppose that's debatable, however outside of the Quebec-Windsor axis, and more specifically, the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle, what routes anywhere in Canada make economic sense? If anything, Calgary-Edmonton represents the most viable service corridor outside Q-W. So either we should acknowledge that passenger rail service outside the corridor is not feasible and scrap VIA altogether outside the Q-W corridor, or alternately ensure that service in the rest of Canada includes the largest cities. Anything else - such as the status quo where small, isolated communities have service but there is no service in a corridor connecting two of the handful of million-plus cities this country has - is ridiculous.

[Boris2k7]

And other than a superficial "oooh shiny" endoresement of HSR how has this been manifest?

Have enough VIA users from Ontario moved out here that a hypothetically opperating Dayliner to Edmonton would attract more than a few dozen passengers a week?

I've seen your arguments in the past regarding this issue, and I'm more than familiar with your position that people just won't give up their cars and take the train.

Clearly, this is not the truth. If it was, people wouldn't be taking public transit. This is because public transit is a viable, affordable option. Many people still take their cars though because of the convenience and speed of using their own private vehicles.

Let's turn this around a bit. People also could drive their cars across the country, but instead, most choose to fly. They spend more money on the plane, but also get convenience and speed out of it. At the other end they pay for taxies, use public transit systems over there, whatever.

So on an intermediate level, it is safe to assume that people will pay a similar or moderately higher price for train travel if it has a comparable level of convenience and is at least moderately faster. There is clear evidence of this, that isn't in Europe. Ridership is up on VIA, and it is up on AMTRAK. In fact, train ridership is up pretty much wherever you go, be it Asia, Europe, North or South America. And rising fuel prices will make taking the train much more attractive in coming years.

We've already had multiple studies looking at the viability of such a route. But the bottom line is, that the issue of HSR may just come down to being an issue where "if you build it, they will come."

EDIT: Now, that said, neither of us have any real evidence that it could or couldn't work out. Let's leave that to market studies. And I don't support the Cross-Country links if hardly anyone uses them and that money could be better spent elsewhere.

[Policy Wonk]

The C-Train and a regional passenger rail service are not the same thing, you can't apply the principles of one to the other. A significant number of Calgarians NEED to travel to the CBD on a daily basis.

The problem with the HSR boosterism is that the same need really doesn't exist in such a form that it requires state intervention. But that is beside the immediate point, the issue is VIA Rail and the reasons why they do not serve Calgary have been more than explained here and in the construction thread.

The Calgary/Edmonton city pair is not represenative of the corridors where regional passenger rail is sucessful, the corridor where VIA does okay is 1000km long and offers connections between a dozen significant centres.

It isn't just the terminating passengers between Toronto and Ottawa or Montreal and Quebec City or in our case Calgary and Edmonton it is everyone going from every centre to every other centre.

[Boris2k7]

I never said that the CTrain and regional train service are the same thing. I simply said that people will choose one or another based on a set of factors that are going to be even more important in the future. That's why I also included longer distance travel options.

Yes, you have addressed several times why conventional rail was removed between Edmonton and Calgary, from your point of view. That's practically ancient history now, it isn't very relevant as to the building of HSR in the present day. Maybe we should also talk about why people no longer use the horse and buggy for their country rides too.

At this point, you can only speculate on whether or not HSR would work out in our corridor. Several reports have come out in recent years indicating that it could work.

I will be looking at Norway in regards to their HSR Network Proposal (http://www.jernbaneverket.no/multimedia/archive/01720/Phase_1_chapter_3_1720732a.pdf). If they can make it work there, then there is little reason we can't make it work here.

[Policy Wonk]

Norway would build a HSR network, the HSR between Calgary and Edmonton will be as isolated from the rest of the North American rail network as the Disneyland Monorail. HSR in Alberta will live and die on the traffic between the Calgary and Edmonton city pair.

[Ruckus]

I tried to find the Alberta HSR thread...no luck :(

What were the estimated costs for an Alberta HSR system?

Too bad Saskatchewan is a few decades behind in development, we'd gladly step up and build an inter-provincial HSR network if we had a need for it. We'll save up our resource dollars when the time is right (Extensive intra-city rail is the first step though).

Western Canadian HSR:
- Calgary and Edmonton link
- Saskatoon and Regina link
- Winnipeg and Regina link
- Regina and Calgary and/or Saskatoon with link to Edmonton and Calgary

Not sure about a connection with the coast...expensive stretch.

How much?

[wild wild west]

I tried to find the Alberta HSR thread...no luck :(

What were the estimated costs for an Alberta HSR system?

Too bad Saskatchewan is a few decades behind in development, we'd gladly step up and build an inter-provincial HSR network if we had a need for it. We'll save up our resource dollars when the time is right (Extensive intra-city rail is the first step though).

Western Canadian HSR:
- Calgary and Edmonton link
- Saskatoon and Regina link
- Winnipeg and Regina link
- Regina and Calgary and/or Saskatoon with link to Edmonton and Calgary

Not sure about a connection with the coast...expensive stretch.

How much?

I don't recall the exact figure for Alberta HSR but it did seem rather low considering how much various construction costs in this province seem to run...4 or 5 billion maybe? A comprehensive Prairie network would, obviously, be several times that.

Still, I would love to see a Western Canadian HSR network...even though we are, in the grand scheme of things, a sparsely populated region, the amount of economic integration between the various western cities is quite impressive, so I think it's probably more viable than many would realize.

[canucklehead2]

Any HSR project in Alberta should be seen more as a development tool/utility than as a viable market-based business. Having said that it could serve as a very important tool in promoting Alberta as a business destination. For example, people could live in Red Deer and commute to either Edmonton or Calgary for work/shopping, etc. Ditto goes for Lethbridge if the CP rail line between Calgary and Lethbridge were upgraded as well...

It could also serve as a great test market for other places, the way LRT did in Edmonton. Prior to 1978 and the opening of our 'lil "railway to nowhere" people scoffed at the idea of a city with 450,000 people or so having a rapid transit system... Now look at how many places across North America have these systems...

Being a province rolling in money, plus a booming population, it would seem this would be a great time to be build the first truly High-speed railway in the Americas...

[Policy Wonk]

Yeah because somebody is totally going to pay an $80-$120 fare each way every day to commute to Calgary or Edmonton from Red Deer.

Alberta would be better served from a business perspective by improved conventional rail links to the United States, specifically a direct connection to the Union Pacifc in Butte Montana.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah because somebody is totally going to pay an $80-$120 fare each way every day to commute to Calgary or Edmonton from Red Deer.

Alberta would be better served from a business perspective by improved conventional rail links to the United States, specifically a direct connection to the Union Pacifc in Butte Montana.

Given that no Amtrak trains run through Butte, you could run from Calgary-Lethbridge - Sweetgrass - Shelby. That would connect Calgary up to daily "empire builder" from Chicago - Portland or Seattle (alternate days). From Shelby the Calgary train could run to Whitefish, as to give the train a destination. (not that I think this train would ever have very high demand at all). (Amtrak Route Map (http://mapmash.googlepages.com/amtrak.html))

There really isn't a north/south route east of the pacific coast main line, or west of the services radiating out of Chicago. There is a reason the 9 of nations of North America called our area the "empty quarter" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America)

If Canada and the USA ever wanted to, a somewhat viable route might be an 'auto-train' from Calgary or Edmonton to Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and either Pheonix or Los Angeles as the terminus.

I am also surprised there isn't a Winnipeg - Chicago train provided by Amtrak or Via. You could do Calgary-Winnipeg-Chicago if you were feeling a bit ambitious.

Re-building the western Canada network should start with daily Vancouver-Calgary and Vancouver-Edmonton.

[Policy Wonk]

Given that no Amtrak trains run through Butte,

I am not talking about passenger trains, I am talking about the rail project that would be most adventageous to Alberta business.

[Greco Roman]

Given that no Amtrak trains run through Butte, you could run from Calgary-Lethbridge - Sweetgrass - Shelby. That would connect Calgary up to daily "empire builder" from Chicago - Portland or Seattle (alternate days). From Shelby the Calgary train could run to Whitefish, as to give the train a destination. (not that I think this train would ever have very high demand at all). (Amtrak Route Map (http://mapmash.googlepages.com/amtrak.html))

There really isn't a north/south route east of the pacific coast main line, or west of the services radiating out of Chicago. There is a reason the 9 of nations of North America called our area the "empty quarter" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America)

If Canada and the USA ever wanted to, a somewhat viable route might be an 'auto-train' from Calgary or Edmonton to Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and either Pheonix or Los Angeles as the terminus.

I am also surprised there isn't a Winnipeg - Chicago train provided by Amtrak or Via. You could do Calgary-Winnipeg-Chicago if you were feeling a bit ambitious.

Re-building the western Canada network should start with daily Vancouver-Calgary and Vancouver-Edmonton.

I too would love to see a Winnipeg-Chicago train as I am sure it would be very successful, and it should also run through Minneapolis and perhaps Milwaukee. I know I would use it if I had a chance.

Not sure how much success a Calgary-Chicago run would have. Calgary is twice the distance from Chicago as Winnipeg is and I'm not sure if people would have the patients to take a 40-50 hour train ride.

[canucklehead2]

Umm Policy Wonk they are called transit passes... And if people can save a buttload of money on real estate by living in a city other than Edmonton or Calgary, the hour-long train ride would be worth it...

Hell if the province built the line, they could even make it fare-free... From what the Van Horne estimate gave, the costs of actually operating the service would be $60-80 mln annually, a mere drop in the bucket, and a good investment in the province as a whole if I do say so myself...

[Greco Roman]

FYI. Just heard from my dad today, who is a train manager on VIA Rail, that they are changing the schedule on the Toronto-Winnipeg-Vancouver route. So those who travel this route, this change takes effect in about 6-7 months.

[Policy Wonk]

Umm Policy Wonk they are called transit passes... And if people can save a buttload of money on real estate by living in a city other than Edmonton or Calgary, the hour-long train ride would be worth it...

Yeah, sign me up for the $4000 monthly transit pass,

[quobobo]

Yeah, sign me up for the $4000 monthly transit pass,

Amen.

Amusingly enough, that's very close to what it would cost to take the Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka for a whole month. It's a pretty good comparison - subsidization is nearly zero, and it's slightly longer but the huge economies of scale (two metropolitan areas that each dwarf all of Alberta) should more than make up for that.

I don't think people grasp just how expensive HSR is.

[Aylmer]

...Nor it's usefulness!

:)

[Mister F]

Norway would build a HSR network, the HSR between Calgary and Edmonton will be as isolated from the rest of the North American rail network as the Disneyland Monorail. HSR in Alberta will live and die on the traffic between the Calgary and Edmonton city pair.
Oslo is less than half the size of Calgary and it's proposing lines radiating out to even smaller cities. Norway is almost as isolated from the rest of Europe as Alberta is from the rest of North America - the only connection is through Sweden, which isn't exactly a highly populated country itself. If Norway can support quality rail service then so can Alberta.

Yeah because somebody is totally going to pay an $80-$120 fare each way every day to commute to Calgary or Edmonton from Red Deer.

Alberta would be better served from a business perspective by improved conventional rail links to the United States, specifically a direct connection to the Union Pacifc in Butte Montana.
That makes no sense. You're proposing a line going to the middle of nowhere in the western US when there's a large city only 3 hours the other way? Highway 4 south of Lethbridge is practically deserted compared to Hwy 2 to Edmonton.

The obvious link that makes sense from a business perspective is Calgary-Edmonton. Highway 2 has a lot of traffic and it's getting busier fast. Before dropping a couple billion to add more lanes the whole way, wouldn't it make sense to give people the alternative of taking the train, even if it's just 170 km/h conventional rail like we have in Ontario? BTW, the majority of VIA's ridership in Ontario and Quebec isn't people who take the train every day, so your "people won't spend $XXX every day" argument is bogus.

Amen.

Amusingly enough, that's very close to what it would cost to take the Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka for a whole month. It's a pretty good comparison - subsidization is nearly zero, and it's slightly longer but the huge economies of scale (two metropolitan areas that each dwarf all of Alberta) should more than make up for that.

I don't think people grasp just how expensive HSR is.
I don't think people grasp that there's more to HSR than Japan - it doesn't take that kind of density to make it work. In the context of HSR in Alberta or anywhere else in Canada, Japan is irrelevant. So many other countries with proposed or existing HSR would be better comparisons: France, Spain, Turkey, Morocco, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Argentina...

[MalcolmTucker]

Interestingly enough, it is $15 billion over five years. Which works out to $3 billion a year, or translated directly to Canada's population $300 million a year.


Link (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-amtrak0611,0,2335081.story)

[Policy Wonk]

Oslo is less than half the size of Calgary and it's proposing lines radiating out to even smaller cities.

Oslo and suburbs has 1.2 million people and most of the entire population in resides within 100 miles of there. Not quite the same thing.

The isolation of Alberta HSR is that if we build a true HSR connection between Calgary and Edmonton that is where it ends, there will be no bullet train to Lethbridge or Fort McMurray. If we were to use the stupid Bombardier jet train once off the native track you have just a very expensive regular train chilling in the sidings.

That means there is no hubbing or corridor effect and that means the viability of the route has to be evaluated on the O&D between the Calgary/Edmonton city pair.

That makes no sense. You're proposing a line going to the middle of nowhere in the western US when there's a large city only 3 hours the other way?

The fact Butte is in the middle of nowhere isn't important, it is however the most western northern terminus of the Union Pacific before you hit the west coast rail congestion.

I don't think people grasp that there's more to HSR than Japan

These aren't HSR issues, or even railroad issues - this is the issue of what makes a transportation hub or corridor viable. The corridors where VIA and Amtrak get by are a thousand miles long, have a cachement of tens of millions of people and can capture travel between any two points in their regional system. Likewise a whole lot of people travelling short distances in a very small area can work also.

Alberta HSR won't have that, it will have to build a viable service on a connection between two cities and only the traffic between those two cities.

The same thing applies to airline hubs, does Salt Lake City have 20,000,000 visitors each year? No but through Salt Lake City you can connect to any point in the western half of North America. If Delta were to close their hub the traffic would fall to only the O&D of those who intended to visit or depart from Salt Lake City and that will be a fraction of the hub traffic.

[Mister F]

Oslo and suburbs has 1.2 million people and most of the entire population in resides within 100 miles of there. Not quite the same thing.

The isolation of Alberta HSR is that if we build a true HSR connection between Calgary and Edmonton that is where it ends, there will be no bullet train to Lethbridge or Fort McMurray. If we were to use the stupid Bombardier jet train once off the native track you have just a very expensive regular train chilling in the sidings.

That means there is no hubbing or corridor effect and that means the viability of the route has to be evaluated on the O&D between the Calgary/Edmonton city pair.
You're right, I was looking at city population, not metro. But still, Norway has one city with a million people, Alberta has two. Norway's only neighbour is Sweden, so it's not much less isolated than Alberta. I'm not advocating the Jettrain or even necessarily TGV (I'm not opposed to TGV either, every study has concluded that enough people would use it) but at the very least medium speed conventional trains like VIA's corridor trains.

The fact Butte is in the middle of nowhere isn't important, it is however the most western northern terminus of the Union Pacific before you hit the west coast rail congestion.
What does Union Pacific have to do with anything? Nobody's going to Butte, and that won't change if the train connects to the Union Pacific. Besides, if you're using the connectivity argument, a train to Edmonton would connect to VIA's cross-Canada train. Regardless, all the congestion is towards Edmonton. The QEII gets 30,000 cars every day. Ten years ago it was barely 20,000. With all that growth rail is not only viable, it's needed.

These aren't HSR issues, or even railroad issues - this is the issue of what makes a transportation hub or corridor viable. The corridors where VIA and Amtrak get by are a thousand miles long, have a cachement of tens of millions of people and can capture travel between any two points in their regional system. Likewise a whole lot of people travelling short distances in a very small area can work also.

Alberta HSR won't have that, it will have to build a viable service on a connection between two cities and only the traffic between those two cities.
And that's all you need to support passenger rail. You don't need thousand mile long corridors with tens of millions of people. The Montreal-Ottawa route would survive just fine if it were isolated from the rest of the network. And a lot more people would use the network if service were better.

[wild wild west]

Oslo and suburbs has 1.2 million people and most of the entire population in resides within 100 miles of there. Not quite the same thing.

"the entire population" of Norway is 4.7 million, which isn't all that much bigger than Alberta. Conversely, Calgary has 1.2 million and Edmonton over 1, in a province of 3.5 million where I would bet pretty close to 3 million live in Calgary, Edmonton and points between. I would have a hard time believing that Norway could connect that many people on ~275 km of track.

Anyways, it doesn't necessarily need to be HSR, but a decent, modern, relatively fast and convenient passenger rail system within the corridor would be an asset IMO. Considering the wealth this province is generating, and what may turn out to be a limited window of opportunity to invest a small portion of this wealth into some high quality infrastructure that will last for generations, I don't think the idea is as outlandish as some would think. And while this province is starting to catch up with regards to the day-to-day infrastructure (hospitals, schools, ring roads, etc.) it still hasn't taken bold steps forward like it did in the past with North America's first LRT systems. All forecasts point to continued rapid population growth in the corridor for the foreseeable future, so I think if anything Alberta would "grow into" a rail system just as it did LRT.

As Canucklehead said, this could serve as a development tool and not necessarily be profit-driven. I would argue that a high-quality, affordable passenger rail service between the cities would serve commuters who live along the corridor, business travellers and tourists.

[Policy Wonk]

but at the very least medium speed conventional trains like VIA's corridor trains.

This was available as recently as 20 years ago and suffered from very poor ridership - even with double the passengers it attracted in 1985 it wouldn't be viable. Further such a service would have to be opperated with the LRC which would further skew the economics because the break-even load on a VIA LRC train is much higher than the load on a Budd RDC was. Does anyone know what the minimum number of LCR's VIA will run at once is?


What does Union Pacific have to do with anything? Nobody's going to Butte, and that won't change if the train connects to the Union Pacific. Besides, if you're using the connectivity argument, a train to Edmonton would connect to VIA's cross-Canada train. Regardless, all the congestion is towards Edmonton. The QEII gets 30,000 cars every day. Ten years ago it was barely 20,000. With all that growth rail is not only viable, it's needed.

The Union Pacific is the largest freight railroad in the United States - I was not making a statement about passenger rail in particular, only which rail project would be most adventagous to Alberta. There is no elegent way from the Union Pacific system into Alberta since the track between Helena and Great Falls Montana was abandoned that easily allowed a train on the Union Pacific line to transfer to the BNSF system from which it could cross into Alberta at Sweet Grass/Coutts.

Freight rail traffic is infinitely more important that passenger rail traffic.

And that's all you need to support passenger rail. You don't need thousand mile long corridors with tens of millions of people. The Montreal-Ottawa route would survive just fine if it were isolated from the rest of the network.

Please demostrate a rail system that opperates between only two fixed points at a distance of 275 km with a cachement population of only 2 million with no oppertunities for onward travel.

And throw out any illusions that this service would be "affordable" - Canada as an honourary 3rd world country doesn't subsudize transportation.

[Ruckus]

A slick promotional video featuring California High Speed Rail...while Albertans contemplate the necessity and cost of high speed rail...

zD1QGNsRg74

[SpongeG]

rail is ridiculous in Canada

just to go to whistler is over $200 return

my friends are going to LA for $400 return by train

[Mister F]

This was available as recently as 20 years ago and suffered from very poor ridership - even with double the passengers it attracted in 1985 it wouldn't be viable. Further such a service would have to be opperated with the LRC which would further skew the economics because the break-even load on a VIA LRC train is much higher than the load on a Budd RDC was. Does anyone know what the minimum number of LCR's VIA will run at once is?
It wouldn't have to be LRC, it could be any of dozens of kinds of rolling stock available. 20 years is a long time. Gas was cheap, traffic between the two cities was probably half of what it is now, and congestion was less both on the roads and in airports. Was the rail service any good? Reliable, fast, comfortable, frequent? A decent rail service would easily get double the passengers it got then, probably a lot more. Like I said, every study has concluded that it would be viable.

The Union Pacific is the largest freight railroad in the United States - I was not making a statement about passenger rail in particular, only which rail project would be most adventagous to Alberta. There is no elegent way from the Union Pacific system into Alberta since the track between Helena and Great Falls Montana was abandoned that easily allowed a train on the Union Pacific line to transfer to the BNSF system from which it could cross into Alberta at Sweet Grass/Coutts.

Freight rail traffic is infinitely more important that passenger rail traffic.
This thread is about passenger rail.

Please demostrate a rail system that opperates between only two fixed points at a distance of 275 km with a cachement population of only 2 million with no oppertunities for onward travel.
There are opportunities for onward travel, and if the southern route is ever brought back (it got higher ridership than the northern route apparently) there will be more opportunities. I think you're overstating the importance of that anyway - most rail travel is between city pairs.

But to answer your question, there's the Outback in Australia, Siberia, New Zealand, Norway, and Ireland off the top of my head. Ireland in particular puts rail service anywhere in Canada to shame, even in the Corridor.

And throw out any illusions that this service would be "affordable" - Canada as an honourary 3rd world country doesn't subsudize transportation.
I can only assume you're being facetious. I don't even know where to start pointing out what's wrong with that sentence.

[Laurent]

And that's all you need to support passenger rail. You don't need thousand mile long corridors with tens of millions of people. The Montreal-Ottawa route would survive just fine if it were isolated from the rest of the network.Please demostrate a rail system that opperates between only two fixed points at a distance of 275 km with a cachement population of only 2 million with no oppertunities for onward travel.

Montreal's CMA is 3.6m (all directly linked to downtown via commuter train or subway) and Ottawa's is 1m. Distance between both is 166km (straight line: http://www.mapcrow.info/Distance_between_Montreal_CA_and_Ottawa_CA.html) or 199km by road (google maps) (don't know what it is by rail but I doubt it would be more than or as much as what it is by road).

In sum, it's 4.6m (and growing) in less than 199km. I don't know what the benchmark ratio of pop./distance is for HSR worldwide, but this link would have 23k people / km of HSR rail.

If anyone wants to make that line first, then I doubt Toronto wouldn't be thrown into the mix, since T.O. is only 352km from Ottawa (straight line: http://www.mapcrow.info/Distance_between_Toronto_CA_and_Ottawa_CA.html) or 450km away by road (google maps).

Add T.O. and you add at least 5.55m people (and growing fast). And if the long road is taken (through Kingston), then you add at least 150k for Kingston metro area.

So with just MTL-OTT-TO we're at a minimum of 10.25m (& growing) in a distance of maximum 650km. This brings us to 15.5k people / km of rail (down from MTL-OTT's 23k / km), but nevertheless linking a third of the country's population (incl. the country's capital and its two biggest cities) by HSR.


[
And throw out any illusions that this service would be "affordable" - Canada as an honourary 3rd world country doesn't subsudize transportation.

Canada (esp. the provincial & municipal governements) unfortunately subsidizes transportation way too much in the form of road & highway infrastructure, which is both very expensive to build and very expensive to maintain. I believe in the user-fee system of transportation (i.e. toll booths on highways, bridges, and ideally even city streets using an electronic system (I'm sure it'll come one day)).

The day that car drivers (like myself) and truck transportation (through the consumers of truck transported goods) will assume the TOTAL cost of the service they are using will be the day that rail travel will suddently become a much cheaper alternative (in relative and absolute terms). 1) By raising the price of road travel to fully reflect the cost of road travel, we decrease the cost of rail travel RELATIVE to road travel. 2) However, by raising the cost of road travel, more people (AND merchandise, incl. consumer goods) will travel by rail, and through economies of scale the cost of rail travel will thus also decrease in ABSOLUTE terms too.

Hence, in my mind, the simple, logical, and FAIR solution is simply to apply the user fee system to road travel. The user fee system already fully applies to food consumption (and partly to public transit), so it would only be fair to apply it to road travel too. Road travel isn't more vital than food, so there's no reason why a fully communist fiscal/usage system should apply to road travel. I think that the historical absence of tolls on roads was imply due to a practical reason. Now we have the technology to easily & efficiently apply fiscal fairness to the use of this public service, so let's use this technology.

I'm not saying our municipal road and provincial/national highway system should be privatized. Quite the opposite: the arteries of our nation should never be in non-public hands. But the public system should simply function on a user-fee basis, like (most of) our public utilities do (and like the rest of them should do).

As for the income taxes we currently pay to fund road travel, these taxes can simply be returned to us (i.e. income tax decrease) or they can be spent on the gov't's priorities (debt reduction, education, health care), or a combination of these options. We each pay 100% for what we choose to eat, so let's each pay 100% for what we choose to use as a means of travel. That's when train travel will really take off, both as an urban & an inter-city method of transit.

[Policy Wonk]

Montreal's CMA is 3.6m (all directly linked to downtown via commuter train or subway) and Ottawa's is 1m. Distance between both is 166km (straight line: ...

This is not an example in support of Alberta HSR,

Canada (esp. the provincial & municipal governements) unfortunately subsidizes transportation way too much in the form of road & highway infrastructure, which is both very expensive to build and very expensive to maintain. I believe in the user-fee system of transportation

Absolutely false, the level at which road transportation is funded in Canada is at crisis levels inadaquate. And their is a user fee, the gas taxes which are NOT returned to road infrastructure as was intended.

Just because public transit is also poorly funded doesn't mean roads are being paved with gold.

[Policy Wonk]

It wouldn't have to be LRC, it could be any of dozens of kinds of rolling stock available.

So scrap yard queen VIA Rail is going to go and buy new cars to opperate one route that was historically among the worst performers in their system?

Using the Budd or Alstom cars certainly wouldn't help the viability any.

There are opportunities for onward travel, and if the southern route is ever brought back (it got higher ridership than the northern route apparently) there will be more opportunities. I think you're overstating the importance of that anyway - most rail travel is between city pairs.

All travel at a stage level is between city pairs, but most viable transportation systems have more than two points in their system. This system will be between Calgary and Edmonton and only Calgary and Edmonton.

And you think people are going to take HSR from Calgary to Edmonton and then jumping on the Canadian to Melville or Kamloops?

I don't think they will. And the southern route is NEVER comming back, the CPR wouldn't allow it.

[slide_rule]

i thought an urban forum would generally be a bit more receptive towards investment in non-automobile public transport?

on a purely cost-benefit basis, one could argue that intracity public transport would be a higher priority than an hsr link between the two large albertan cities. but flat out dismissing the prospect of a rail connection runs counter to most logical arguments. via rail performs poorly because its budgets have been atrophied, not because rail transport is intrinsically unsuitable for canada.

conversely, one could argue that a rail link between the two cities could spur additional investment in public transport, leading to additional LRT lines throughout both edmonton and calgary, increased density in the urban cores and along the rail paths, and ultimately decreasing both sprawl and auto-dependency. all the talk about induced traffic applies to passenger rail as well. if you build it, they will come.

one rail line between the two largest cities would not be a panacea, but at least it could lead to more later on. of course the alternative would be burning even more gasoline in cars and short haul flights.

[Policy Wonk]

You will take far more cars off the road with improved local public transit than you ever will with a train between Calgary and Edmonton.

This project is a fantasy and reflects neither a practical need or popular demand and on the list of transportation priorities for public funding it should rank somewhere near the bottom.

VIA Rail performs poorly because it is obligated to opperate marginal routes and they are allowed to get away with opperating like it is the 1970's because the government has taken no interest in oversight.

[slide_rule]

? a marginal line? it's between the two largest cities, which together make up a large majority of the entire province's population. transportation between the two cities is handled by a freeway that will inevitably reach saturation, and by myriad short haul flights.

it might not be the absolute best use of money (as opposed to intracity public transport), but it's certainly something which should be considered. of course, the car lovers could suggest that more lines of freeway serving even more cars, and more polluting short haul flights could be flown...

[Policy Wonk]

There is more to consideration than boosterism, boosterism brought Alberta NovaTel and the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway.

Even if I were the most militant anti-car bomb the suburbs zealot this project wouldn't make my priority list.

[slide_rule]

There is more to consideration than boosterism, boosterism brought Alberta NovaTel and the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway.

Even if I were the most militant anti-car bomb the suburbs zealot this project wouldn't make my priority list.

uh... just what are you trying to say? you've repeatedly ignored other forumers when they've pointed out that the costs for automobile travel are subsidized and deferred and otherwise ignored. the taxes you pay on gas DON'T cover the additional costs of road building, maintenance, the continual expansion of the utility grid and their maintenance, the extra costs of taking away greenfield land, pollution, etc. what's more, you point out under-funded and mismanaged via rail as an inevitable example of rail transport?

[Laurent]

^ I agree with the Donald.

This is not an example in support of Alberta HSR,

When you spoke of 2m people in 275 km, you were replying to Mister F's comment regarding a Montreal and Ottawa line, so I mistakenly thought you were talking about MTL & Ott. I now see that you were in fact talking about a Calgary-Edmonton line, so finally we weren't talking about the same thing.


Absolutely false, the level at which road transportation is funded in Canada is at crisis levels inadaquate. And their is a user fee, the gas taxes which are NOT returned to road infrastructure as was intended.

Just because public transit is also poorly funded doesn't mean roads are being paved with gold.

Funding roads with income taxes is a bad idea
I know our roads aren't paved in gold - I live in Montreal!! :eek: Just last March I hit a pot hole that cost me about $500 for a new pair of shocks. I could've flown to London for that price. But I don't think that the solution to this problem is to increase income tax funded investments in our road system. I believe that actually worsens (or at least prolongs) the problem because an income tax funded construction of any sort will always be developed and maintained (or underdeveloped and insufficiently maintained) with political (rather than practical or democratic) purposes first.

Gas tax is user fee on pollution, not roads
As you mentioned, the gas tax is total rubbish too since it isn't even invested back into the roads network. Though it can be considered as a user fee for car-generated pollution, it clearly can't be considered a user fee for our road system. Morever, even if it were invested into highways, it wouldn't even be fair or efficient because it taxes people not on their highway usage but on their fuel consumption. For example, I pay the gas tax like everyone else but I drive 95% (or more) of the time on city streets, not highways, so even if the gas tax is used by provincial & federal gov'ts to fund highway maintenance, I (like millions of other other urban Canadians) am paying for roads that I don't use, while my city lacks the money (or the competence - but that's another story) to fix the roads I actually do drive on.

Where do we get the extra funds?
Basically, there's always going to be underfunding in EVERYTHING in Canada and every other country in the world (in infrastructure, education (esp. higher education), health care, military, etc.), 'cause we'll never have all the services we want, and they'll never have the level of quality that we want. What's the root cause of this underfunding? Gov't simply doesn't invest enough? But where will it get the funds to invest the extra money? That's the question. There are the following options for increased funding (if anyone can think of other options, please say so):

1 - Increase taxes rates
2 - Make the economy grow (how?) so that the tax revenue can increase without having to raise the tax rates
3 - Cut spending elsewhere (in what?)
4 - Borrow (increase debt -> scary idea)
5 - Privatize (for liquor boards, sure. For infrastructure, hmmmm . . . next thing you know we might be privatizing jails like in US. Or water like in some African countries. now that's scary).
6 - Charge user fees

I choose option 7. I'd love to choose option 2, but I'm not gonna bank on our gov't making brilliant policies to generate great economic development and increased tax revenues to fund extra investments. Also, I'd love to choose option 3, but that's an eternal debate 'cause in times of gov't surpluses and public sector employment attrition there'll rarely be a majority of voters who'll agree on where to cut. I'd love to cut in the famous "bureaucracy," but I honestly don't know where to start 'cause I don't know which gov't ministries or operations have excess personel (if any actually do). They possibly all do, but what are we gonna do, just cut 10% of the public sector (. . . I might actually vote for that - but we know it probably won't happen). So seriously, I simply don't see where we'd get the money to invest more in either roads or trains. To me, the only solution is to make things fair and let people pay for their own modes of transportation, whether its by bike, car, train, boat, plane, or walking. The only problem with setting up user fees for walking (and maybe even biking) is that it would be very impractical (if not ineffective . . and kinda spooky) to set up toll booths on sidewalks.

In sum, other than through use fees, I don't see where the gov't could get the money to increase the funding of our roads & highways & trains. If anyone can think of a better (or just as good) way of funding it, please say so.

Transport (or Highways) Canada - A Crown Corporation?
I actually get the impression that the regulating section of Transport Canada should remain how it is -> a government ministry, but that the transportation funding section should become a crown corporation, just like Canada Post, BC Hydro, TTC, our nation's biggest ports and airports, etc. If funding energy, postal service, ports, airports, or public transit mainly through income taxes sounds like a bad idea, I believe that funding road travel through income taxes is a bad idea. When we'll stop doing this, trains will suddenly compete on an even keel with cars in the realms of urban and inter-city transit.

[SpongeG]

i thought highways and maintenance were already privatized?

i know in BC that happenned in the 80's - the old government employees just got hired by the private company that took over at least where i was living at the time and they were responsible for clearing the highways and maintaining them

[Policy Wonk]

I am saying Canada does not adaquately fund ANY form of transportation and that is including roads. Different types of transportation aren't being neglected in favour of roads, their all neglected.

When it comes to the role of the government in transportation Canada is a third world country, Ottawa even got out of the business of air traffic control.

VIA Rail comes into the discussion because some people on this website are feeling some serious angry white man western alienation for the lack of VIA Rail service to Calgary.

However what can't be escaped are the economics of transportation that apply not only to passenger rail and the absence of the characteristics and economies of scale that make it viable in certain regions of the United States and Canada.

[Mister F]

Policy Wonk, you've ignored all the examples of rail working in other isolated, low density places, but I'll give you another one anyway: Vancouver Island.

All travel at a stage level is between city pairs, but most viable transportation systems have more than two points in their system. This system will be between Calgary and Edmonton and only Calgary and Edmonton.

And you think people are going to take HSR from Calgary to Edmonton and then jumping on the Canadian to Melville or Kamloops?

I don't think they will. And the southern route is NEVER comming back, the CPR wouldn't allow it.
The government can make CPR allow it. You can't dismiss rail by what it is or was - the whole point of this discussion is about what it could be. VIA is only a "scrap yard queen" because it gets next to no funding. Every study concludes that rail is viable. You've given us nothing to prove them wrong. And you've answered none of my questions on what the old train service was like. That has to be considered if you're using ridership on an old line to dismiss potential for a new one.

Don't underestimate demand for travel between Edmonton and Calgary. There are almost as many flights as between Montreal and Toronto, and the QEII is busier than much of the 401. That's a lot of ridership to tap into.

i thought highways and maintenance were already privatized?

i know in BC that happenned in the 80's - the old government employees just got hired by the private company that took over at least where i was living at the time and they were responsible for clearing the highways and maintaining them
I'm not sure how it works in BC, but Ontario did the same thing in the 90s, but highways are still owned and payed for by the government. The Ministry of Transportation makes all the decisions on maintenance and expansion. Environmental assessments and highway design is contracted out to private engineering firms and supervised by MTO. Actual construction is done by private contractors.

[canucklehead2]

To get cars off the road, I don't think it's an either/or thing with improved LRT vs. HSR. It's both. And you need to integrate both systems to make the transition between the two as seemless as possible. In an idealized scenario, a traveller could park his car at say Clareview station in Edmonton's NE, hop an LRT downtown, and transfer to the TGV or whatever you want to call it. Than do the same thing on the other end in Calgary...

Naturally cars will play some role in this process, probably at the other end. Of course there will be some people who won't want to give up their cars or want to rent on the other end, but I think the financial benefits of renting a small runabout on the other end would outweigh the concept of driving to Calgary alone...

[Policy Wonk]

Policy Wonk, you've ignored all the examples of rail working in other isolated, low density places, but I'll give you another one anyway: Vancouver Island.

The examples presented have little to nothing to do with what is proposed in Alberta which is a single point-to-point connection between TWO cities at 275km. No corridor, no hub, a small cachement base and traditionally poor utilization of a conventional link.

The service opperating on Vancouver Island is a pair of broken down Budd RDC's and isn't an example of anything.

The government can make CPR allow it. You can't dismiss rail by what it is or was - the whole point of this discussion is about what it could be. VIA is only a "scrap yard queen" because it gets next to no funding. Every study concludes that rail is viable.

The government isn't going to force the CPR to do anything, the real Canadian route is never comming back. VIA is a scrap yard queen because they use their funding poorly to maintain an illogical scope of service, they could put a big dent in the fleet renewal if they were not pissing away the so much of their funding on refurbishing their F40PH's and LRC's.

I am not aware of ANY study that has said restoring conventional rail between Calgary and Edmonton is viable, unless you consider the Bombardier JetTrain to be conventional, reports such as those from the Vanhorne institute severely under-estimate the costs of construction of high speed rail and the need for massive ongoing opperating subsudies. They claim the JetTrain alternative will break even. Earlier reports such as the one in 1985 on a TVG line rejected the proposal. The later study in 1995 reached more negative conclusions than the first one given the 1985 traffic projections for travel of all types between Calgary and Edmonton had not been met. The present round was brought about by some hangers-on of Ralph Klein who are looking to cash in on a highly subsudized project.

The Vanhorne study is also a reflection of the high level participation of such disinterested third parties as Bombardier, engineering and construction firms Canac and SNC Lavalin and the CPR. I am sure the participation of Bombardier and the CPR who is whoring for a free upgrade of the sublines to Edmonton had no reflection on the conclusions supporting the CPR and Bombardier JetTrain.

The CPR doesn't want anything to do with this project, unless ofcourse it means they get the sublines to Edmonton upgraded free of charge.

And you've answered none of my questions on what the old train service was like. That has to be considered if you're using ridership on an old line to dismiss potential for a new one.

I am sorry, I didn't notice a specific question. The route was opperated with Dayliner equipment which is the Budd RDC similar to those opperated on Vancouver Island. I believe it originally opperated 4 times a day and later two. When the train was still opperated by the CPR they opperated it with some premium services. The RDC's had a problem with poor visibility from the road and periodically somebody blowing through an uncontrolled crossing would get a physics lesson.


Don't underestimate demand for travel between Edmonton and Calgary. There are almost as many flights as between Montreal and Toronto, and the QEII is busier than much of the 401. That's a lot of ridership to tap into.

I don't underestimate it, I just doubt how much of it can be captured by this train. Especially given how much of the traffic is oilfield services related which is NOT going into downtown Edmonton.

[lubicon]

i thought an urban forum would generally be a bit more receptive towards investment in non-automobile public transport?

on a purely cost-benefit basis, one could argue that intracity public transport would be a higher priority than an hsr link between the two large albertan cities. but flat out dismissing the prospect of a rail connection runs counter to most logical arguments. via rail performs poorly because its budgets have been atrophied, not because rail transport is intrinsically unsuitable for canada.

conversely, one could argue that a rail link between the two cities could spur additional investment in public transport, leading to additional LRT lines throughout both edmonton and calgary, increased density in the urban cores and along the rail paths, and ultimately decreasing both sprawl and auto-dependency. all the talk about induced traffic applies to passenger rail as well. if you build it, they will come.

one rail line between the two largest cities would not be a panacea, but at least it could lead to more later on. of course the alternative would be burning even more gasoline in cars and short haul flights.

? a marginal line? it's between the two largest cities, which together make up a large majority of the entire province's population. transportation between the two cities is handled by a freeway that will inevitably reach saturation, and by myriad short haul flights.

it might not be the absolute best use of money (as opposed to intracity public transport), but it's certainly something which should be considered. of course, the car lovers could suggest that more lines of freeway serving even more cars, and more polluting short haul flights could be flown...

My biggest problem with HSR (between Calgary & Edmonton anyway) is with respects to how the line will be funded, both the contruction and the operation of the line. If government (taxpayer) money is involved then I have a problem with the whole concept. It introduces a product (train in this case) that is paid for by the taxpayer and possibly subsidized by the taxpayer as well. This would compete against private interests already operating transportation systems between the 2 cities (Greyhound, Red Arrow, Air Canada, Westjet for example) and I don't think it is right for a private company to have to compete against a publically funded system.

i thought highways and maintenance were already privatized?

i know in BC that happenned in the 80's - the old government employees just got hired by the private company that took over at least where i was living at the time and they were responsible for clearing the highways and maintaining them

As is the case in Alberta too. However ownership of the highways remains with the province, and all the decisions as to what/when to build remain as well. Private contractors simply perform the work on the roads as they are directed by the province, or as their contract dictates.

[slide_rule]

My biggest problem with HSR (between Calgary & Edmonton anyway) is with respects to how the line will be funded, both the contruction and the operation of the line. If government (taxpayer) money is involved then I have a problem with the whole concept. It introduces a product (train in this case) that is paid for by the taxpayer and possibly subsidized by the taxpayer as well. This would compete against private interests already operating transportation systems between the 2 cities (Greyhound, Red Arrow, Air Canada, Westjet for example) and I don't think it is right for a private company to have to compete against a publically funded system.

you can be sure the airlines and bus companies will lobby against any proposed rail line. ironically the same airlines and bus companies are already deriving benefits from taxpayer funded infrastructure. if you wanted to use a fiscally fundamentalist perspective, you could have specified that the highway between the two cities and the airports be 100% funded by private industry. natural monopolies don't really work... but it'd be interesting to see someone try it, just to see the results.

[canucklehead2]

Well we know that the airlines are in the crapper right now, so I don't think they are in much of a position to complain about things, especially with Air Canada being one of the biggest corporate welfare leaches in the nation...

[lubicon]

Well we know that the airlines are in the crapper right now, so I don't think they are in much of a position to complain about things, especially with Air Canada being one of the biggest corporate welfare leaches in the nation...

Please elaborate about the corporate welfare part.

[lubicon]

you can be sure the airlines and bus companies will lobby against any proposed rail line. ironically the same airlines and bus companies are already deriving benefits from taxpayer funded infrastructure. if you wanted to use a fiscally fundamentalist perspective, you could have specified that the highway between the two cities and the airports be 100% funded by private industry. natural monopolies don't really work... but it'd be interesting to see someone try it, just to see the results.

The main difference being that ANYONE can use these facilities to transport people or goods between the 2 cities. A HSR line would be limited to one user, and they would have the line to themselves. Maybe if they built the line and then allowed several companies to use it....

[Mister F]

My biggest problem with HSR (between Calgary & Edmonton anyway) is with respects to how the line will be funded, both the contruction and the operation of the line. If government (taxpayer) money is involved then I have a problem with the whole concept. It introduces a product (train in this case) that is paid for by the taxpayer and possibly subsidized by the taxpayer as well. This would compete against private interests already operating transportation systems between the 2 cities (Greyhound, Red Arrow, Air Canada, Westjet for example) and I don't think it is right for a private company to have to compete against a publically funded system.
The government pays for roads. That's a direct subsidy to private companies like Greyhound. That subsidy is at the expense of rail, which has to rent infrastructure from freight companies. All this despite the fact that rail is safer, cleaner, and potentially faster, more convenient and more comfortable than driving. If roads are going to be built by the government, so should rails. Private (or government) passenger trains could use public tracks, just like private buses and cars use public roads. Rail should be given at least equal treatment with roads.

The examples presented have little to nothing to do with what is proposed in Alberta which is a single point-to-point connection between TWO cities at 275km. No corridor, no hub, a small cachement base and traditionally poor utilization of a conventional link.

The service opperating on Vancouver Island is a pair of broken down Budd RDC's and isn't an example of anything.
Of course it's an example, it's a daily service connecting cities and towns in a linear corridor with no outside connections. It fits what you were asking for perfectly. The fact that it uses old Budd cars isn't relevant - if new DMUs were bought for the line ridership would probably go up. New Zealand is another good example. Longer corridors connecting smaller cities on both islands. Same with Ireland - it has a higher population than the other two but way better service. Cork to Dublin, 272 km, 2 million between them, limited connections to other cities (it's an island after all), and hourly service. Siberia and Australia have trains over way longer, emptier distances and they're obviously viable or else they wouldn't exist. Hell, even Alaska has passenger rail.

The government isn't going to force the CPR to do anything, the real Canadian route is never comming back. VIA is a scrap yard queen because they use their funding poorly to maintain an illogical scope of service, they could put a big dent in the fleet renewal if they were not pissing away the so much of their funding on refurbishing their F40PH's and LRC's.
Again you're getting stuck on what is, instead of what could or should be. Even if VIA is mismanaged (I'd argue that it's not, but it's not really relevant), that has nothing to do with the viability of passenger rail itself.

I am not aware of ANY study that has said restoring conventional rail between Calgary and Edmonton is viable, unless you consider the Bombardier JetTrain to be conventional, reports such as those from the Vanhorne institute severely under-estimate the costs of construction of high speed rail and the need for massive ongoing opperating subsudies. They claim the JetTrain alternative will break even. Earlier reports such as the one in 1985 on a TVG line rejected the proposal. The later study in 1995 reached more negative conclusions than the first one given the 1985 traffic projections for travel of all types between Calgary and Edmonton had not been met. The present round was brought about by some hangers-on of Ralph Klein who are looking to cash in on a highly subsudized project

The Vanhorne study is also a reflection of the high level participation of such disinterested third parties as Bombardier, engineering and construction firms Canac and SNC Lavalin and the CPR. I am sure the participation of Bombardier and the CPR who is whoring for a free upgrade of the sublines to Edmonton had no reflection on the conclusions supporting the CPR and Bombardier JetTrain.

The CPR doesn't want anything to do with this project, unless ofcourse it means they get the sublines to Edmonton upgraded free of charge.
Just because you think the study overestimated ridership and underestimated costs, that doesn't make it true.

I am sorry, I didn't notice a specific question. The route was opperated with Dayliner equipment which is the Budd RDC similar to those opperated on Vancouver Island. I believe it originally opperated 4 times a day and later two. When the train was still opperated by the CPR they opperated it with some premium services. The RDC's had a problem with poor visibility from the road and periodically somebody blowing through an uncontrolled crossing would get a physics lesson.

I don't underestimate it, I just doubt how much of it can be captured by this train. Especially given how much of the traffic is oilfield services related which is NOT going into downtown Edmonton.
The answer wasn't to shut down the train, it was to make all the crossings controlled, buy modern equipment, make sure track is up to standard and trains run on time, make a decent schedule, and integrate the lines with transit in Edmonton and Calgary. Build a proper line and the riders will come. Build a high speed line and ridership will be huge.

Sure not everyone's going downtown, hence the importance of integration with local transit.

[canucklehead2]

Taxpayer-funded bailouts of Air Canada as a privatized company are a regular occurance are they not? Almost as frequent as ones for Bombardier were under the Liberals...

The Automakers are just as bad for being financial mooches as well, and we all know what GM is doing in Oshawa now...

Here in Edmonton, on a smaller scale, Edmonton lost a pile of money in corporate hand outs to Dell Computers who opened a new 120,000 sq ft call centre 2 years ago and closed it down already...

[SpongeG]

BC still owns and funds the highways

I remember when it happenned people freaked out thinking the roads would be less cared for etc. and in fact the roads ended up in better condition

[Policy Wonk]

Of course it's an example, it's a daily service connecting cities and towns in a linear corridor with no outside connections.

And Victoria and Courtney are 200km apart with three communities served in between.

Same with Ireland - it has a higher population than the other two but way better service. Cork to Dublin, 272 km, 2 million between them, limited connections to other cities (it's an island after all), and hourly service.

Why don't you consult a rail map of Ireland and revisit that statement, there are unlimited connections possible in Ireland. What remains of passenger rail in New Zealand connects multiple communities.

Just because you think the study overestimated ridership and underestimated costs, that doesn't make it true.

Why should this report from Vanhorne even be called a study? it is a sales pitch put together by a think tank from a group all of whom stand to profit from the project. Then again I have a study around here somewhere on natural gas deregulation produced by Enron.

The answer wasn't to shut down the train, it was to make all the crossings controlled, buy modern equipment, make sure track is up to standard and trains run on time, make a decent schedule, and integrate the lines with transit in Edmonton and Calgary. Build a proper line and the riders will come. Build a high speed line and ridership will be huge.

There were trials of the then modern LRC between Calgary and Edmonton but there was not the ridership to support it. I think the redneck motorist problem could have been resolved with a good old fashioned cow catcher. You are putting alot of faith in build it and they will come.

[/quote]Sure not everyone's going downtown, hence the importance of integration with local transit.[/QUOTE]

Then build out local public transit first.

[ikerrin]

Last night, CBC actually had a program about "peak oil".

I am dubious about the concept but they did make a good case that with the cost of drivig going up, people are looking for options. An electricity powered train connection between the big Alberta cities and other Canadian cities would certainly help out people already living away from the city and with km's to travel.

Imagine that you drive 50 km each way a day to work. That's 26,000 km a year to commute. if your car averages 9 litres/100 km and gas costs rise to $2.20 down the road then your commute costs a bit over $5000 a year or about $100 a week. When you throw in parking, the switch to a high speed rail line doesn't look so bad, so you would have a lot of commuters supplementing the long haul travelers.

With the cost of gas going up so much, I am surprised we are not dusting off more of our rail plans. Calgary- Edmonton looks like a no brainer!

[Mister F]

And Victoria and Courtney are 200km apart with three communities served in between.

Why don't you consult a rail map of Ireland and revisit that statement, there are unlimited connections possible in Ireland. What remains of passenger rail in New Zealand connects multiple communities.
Wait a minute, are you saying that a line connecting a midsize city to a bunch of towns is more viable than a line connecting two big cities with a bunch of towns in between? Seriously?

I already have looked at rail maps, Wikipedia's really handy for that. Ireland has lots of connections but a small population, and vastly better service than anything we're used to. The Vancouver Island train connects Victoria to a handful of small towns and cities. The line from Wellington to Auckland is twice as long as Edmonton to Calgary, with mostly small towns in between. The two lines connecting to Christchurch go to even smaller towns and villages. An Alberta line would connect to just as many communities: Airdrie, Olds, Innisfail, Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin, Leduc. Plus a major city on either end. Way higher potential ridership than New Zealand or Vancouver Island.

Yes, I'm putting a lot of weight to "build it and they will come". Alberta is a lot more populated than 20 or 30 years ago, roads are a lot more congested, driving is more expensive, and flying isn't getting any cheaper. Induced traffic works just as well with rail as with roads. People will take the easier option, which could easily be the train.

[wild wild west]

Excellent post, Mister F. Looking at New Zealand, all their major cities are connected by a relatively extensive rail network. New Zealand's population of 4.2 million is not tremendously different than Alberta's 3.5 million, and unlike New Zealand, in the Alberta context most of our population lives in and between Calgary and Edmonton. New Zealand's population is comparatively evenly distributed amongst one large city and a number of mid-size ones; there is no 275 km rail corridor in the country with as large a catchment population as the Calgary-Edmonton corridor.

[Policy Wonk]

Wait a minute, are you saying that a line connecting a midsize city to a bunch of towns is more viable than a line connecting two big cities with a bunch of towns in between? Seriously?



I actually didn't say that, but that is often the case as larger cities have air connections to perhiperal communities lacked by small cities. However in the case of VIA Rail on Vancouver Island the primary appeal is to tourists because they are allowed to hop on or off at the train at the intermediate locations at their leisure.

I already have looked at rail maps, Wikipedia's really handy for that. Ireland has lots of connections but a small population, and vastly better service than anything we're used to.

But you presented Cork to Belfast as a Calgary to Edmonton like terminated city pair, which is obviously false.

An Alberta line would connect to just as many communities: Airdrie, Olds, Innisfail, Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin, Leduc. Plus a major city on either end. Way higher potential ridership than New Zealand or Vancouver Island.

Other than an unlikely possible stop in Red Deer nobody has proposed anything like that. And if the train is stopping in Airdrie, Olds, Innisfail, Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin and Leduc it sure as hell won't be high speed.

Yes, I'm putting a lot of weight to "build it and they will come". Alberta is a lot more populated than 20 or 30 years ago, roads are a lot more congested, driving is more expensive, and flying isn't getting any cheaper. Induced traffic works just as well with rail as with roads. People will take the easier option, which could easily be the train.

Well since you clearly know more about this than any of the hayseeds in the transportation industry, why don't you present your unimpeachable conclusions to venture capitalists and when your the next railroad billionaire you can tell the world how stupid they are.

[Policy Wonk]

Looking at New Zealand, all their major cities are connected by a relatively extensive rail network.

Only a portion of which has passenger service,

[Nutterbug]

Other than an unlikely possible stop in Red Deer nobody has proposed anything like that. And if the train is stopping in Airdrie, Olds, Innisfail, Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin and Leduc it sure as hell won't be high speed.

It would be a waste to just pass them by, especially Red Deer.

Anyways, the most sensible compromise solution would be medium high-speed rail in the 150 km/h range. Perhaps they should look into something like the Talgo trains used on the Amtrak Cascades between Vancouver and Portland.

[Bassic Lab]

I actually didn't say that, but that is often the case as larger cities have air connections to perhiperal communities lacked by small cities. However in the case of VIA Rail on Vancouver Island the primary appeal is to tourists because they are allowed to hop on or off at the train at the intermediate locations at their leisure.



Other than an unlikely possible stop in Red Deer nobody has proposed anything like that. And if the train is stopping in Airdrie, Olds, Innisfail, Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin and Leduc it sure as hell won't be high speed.


While I don't think and Alberta HSR system should be built any time soon I do think that the province should assemble the ROW for the future. The land is relatively cheap now and in 25 years or so the corridor should have well over 4 million people, the Calgary metro alone near 2 million.

At the time that it would be useful wouldn't it make sense to run different trains on different schedules? Downtown to downtown expresses with no stops, runs from Edmonton that stop at some station with access to Calgary International Airport and vice versa, and slower runs that stop at various towns along the way. Hell I imagine it would make sense to run regional commuter rail along the same tracks in spots, specifically the Airdre to Calgary run. If the province owned twinned tracks I doubt Calgary to Edmonton HSR between the two cities would be the only thing that would or should run on it.

[Nutterbug]

This is how I would set up the national rail network to look:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=104286293891932378665.000450996292462641a41&ll=49.894634,-94.833984&spn=35.549908,73.037109&z=4

I'd break up the cross-country line into smaller regional lines, to reduce delays and improve the schedule. I'd also download the routes to nowhere places like Gaspe, Senneterre, Churchill, Prince Rupert and Courtenay to the provinces, and put them in charge of them if they want them so much.

[Policy Wonk]

Well in that case if your going to serve Airdrie, Olds, Innisfail, Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin and Leduc why not just make it a good old fashioned flag stop train.

There seem to be two exclusively contradictory desires being expressed here, one is linking Calgary and Edmonton with a high speed train and creating a single economic unit or whatever buzz word you like.

The other seems to be more along the lines of restoring rail service to pre-highway/airline era levels using conventional rail and stopping in every one horse / no horse town.

If the desire is for high speed rail, the Bombardier Jet Train is a bad comprimise to start with, moving further down the line your just getting into even greater impracticalities.

[Policy Wonk]

At the time that it would be useful wouldn't it make sense to run different trains on different schedules? Downtown to downtown expresses with no stops, runs from Edmonton that stop at some station with access to Calgary International Airport and vice versa, and slower runs that stop at various towns along the way. Hell I imagine it would make sense to run regional commuter rail along the same tracks in spots, specifically the Airdre to Calgary run. If the province owned twinned tracks I doubt Calgary to Edmonton HSR between the two cities would be the only thing that would or should run on it.

That can't be judged without first seeing the infrastructure that would be built. Running all that on the CPR would be a challenge even if the line were twinned, while using true HSR could be too expensive for the commuter service relative to LRT or conventional rail alternatives. For instance a true HSR line between Calgary and Edmonton will not service Okotoks or Cochran.

[Nutterbug]

Well in that case if your going to serve Airdrie, Olds, Innisfail, Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin and Leduc why not just make it a good old fashioned flag stop train.

There seem to be two exclusively contradictory desires being expressed here, one is linking Calgary and Edmonton with a high speed train and creating a single economic unit or whatever buzz word you like.

The other seems to be more along the lines of restoring rail service to pre-highway/airline era levels using conventional rail and stopping in every one horse / no horse town.

If the desire is for high speed rail, the Bombardier Jet Train is a bad comprimise to start with, moving further down the line your just getting into even greater impracticalities.

Not really. If the train travels at a top speed of 150 km/h with good acceleration, it should rival the car in travel time, even with the stops along the way. Plus, you don't have to drive. A single train ticket should also still beat a plane ticket or a tank of gas for price.

I suppose I'd have the tracks used for both the express trains stopping at Red Deer only, and commuter trains stopping at every little town inbetween, with suitably placed sidings to facilitate passing.

[Bassic Lab]

That can't be judged without first seeing the infrastructure that would be built. Running all that on the CPR would be a challenge even if the line were twinned, while using true HSR could be too expensive for the commuter service relative to LRT or conventional rail alternatives. For instance a true HSR line between Calgary and Edmonton will not service Okotoks or Cochran.

Of course, regional commuter rail for Okotoks, Cochrane, Chestermere, Strathmore, Highriver, etcetera, would have nothing to do with the Calgary to Edmonton tracks built for HSR. They'd have to run on pre-existing freight tracks until upgrades or all new tracks are ultimately required. I'm merely pointing out that the Airdre component of any such regional rail transportation system could easily make use of new tracks meant for HSR.

I doubt that, even when such a system becomes feasible, a new green field route of twinned, electrified, rail between Calgary and Edmonton would be anywhere near capacity solely from the planned HSR. If the government owned such track it would make sense to use it as much as possible. This would include High Speed Rail with out stops, dayliner type service to every podunk town along the route, and commuter service where applicable. Since the route through Calgary would have to be in the Nose Creek corridor it would pass right by any future spur from the North Central LRT to the Airport, and south of Edmonton it would go right past Leduc and Edmonton's Airport, it would also serve air travelers.

Basically if we're ever going to spend five billion or what have you on new tracks between Calgary and Edmonton we ought to use them to as full capacity as we can. Doing so I think the system would make sense within the next twenty five or so years. After that the system can be extended to other population centers if it ever makes sense, which may never happen but the ROWs should be secured now.

[Mister F]

I actually didn't say that, but that is often the case as larger cities have air connections to perhiperal communities lacked by small cities. However in the case of VIA Rail on Vancouver Island the primary appeal is to tourists because they are allowed to hop on or off at the train at the intermediate locations at their leisure.

But you presented Cork to Belfast as a Calgary to Edmonton like terminated city pair, which is obviously false.
Not false at all. You're overstating the importance of those connections. Besides, Alberta has potential connections too, just not as many. As for Vancouver Island, you've given no proof that it relies on tourists. Even if it does, you're getting stuck on details. What matters is the service exists.

Other than an unlikely possible stop in Red Deer nobody has proposed anything like that. And if the train is stopping in Airdrie, Olds, Innisfail, Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin and Leduc it sure as hell won't be high speed.
Well you're the one who was talking about the importance of the small towns along the routes we've been talking about. Just like most rail lines, it could operate with express and local trains. Other people have posted ideas about how it could work.

Well since you clearly know more about this than any of the hayseeds in the transportation industry, why don't you present your unimpeachable conclusions to venture capitalists and when your the next railroad billionaire you can tell the world how stupid they are.
I'm more connected to the transporation industry than you think. Trust me, the planners and engineers who design transportation networks are as prone to biases and bad decisions as anyone else.

[Nutterbug]

Not false at all. You're overstating the importance of those connections. Besides, Alberta has potential connections too, just not as many. As for Vancouver Island, you've given no proof that it relies on tourists. Even if it does, you're getting stuck on details. What matters is the service exists.

1. It's a year round service. It doesn't just run during the summer tourist months.

2. It uses a rather old, slow and clunky vehicle for impressing tourists.

[Policy Wonk]

Well you're the one who was talking about the importance of the small towns along the routes we've been talking about.

The importance is that communities served contribute to traffic, not just the number of communities that are served the reason to eastern corridors in Canada and the US support Amtrak and VIA is because people actually travel between those communities in large numbers. You could go days without anybody getting on or off the train in those communities. You can't compare Airdrie, Olds, Innisfail, Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin and Leduc to Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres, Montreal, Kingston, Oshawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Waterloo, London and Windsor and say "Look, we have a corridor too!"

I'm more connected to the transporation industry than you think. Trust me, the planners and engineers who design transportation networks are as prone to biases and bad decisions as anyone else.

All I see are the romantic postings of a train spotter extrapolating any example he can find to justify a project that reflects neither a hard need or public desire. And just because something happens to exist doesn't mean it is viable, well utilizied or to be emulated.

[Policy Wonk]

1. It's a year round service. It doesn't just run during the summer tourist months.

2. It uses a rather old, slow and clunky vehicle for impressing tourists.

VIA markets it to tourists exploring the island and the service will probably continue until the RDC's it is opperated with become unservicable.

[canucklehead2]

HSR should be just that; high-speed with limited stops. Commuter rail to me is just as important and a system should be set up for not only Edmonton and Calgary but even perhaps Red Deer. This could use the existing CP rail line with new Siemens or Bombardier DMU's. A good maximum distance should be around 75 km, which would allow Red Deer to hold it's own against the biggies in terms of commuting rings...

While the populations of these towns are small and the regular commuting markets even smaller, they would be the first key step in creating a new rail-based economy free or at least buffered from the sudden spikes in fossil fuels.

[SpongeG]

i used the E&N train to go home from college a few times

it was kind of impractical cause the schedule is so restrictive one train at bad times

it would be nice to have a proper full service train on the island and i think a lot more people than tourists would use it than

a lot of the hippies don't have cars so they would love it

[Mister F]

The importance is that communities served contribute to traffic, not just the number of communities that are served the reason to eastern corridors in Canada and the US support Amtrak and VIA is because people actually travel between those communities in large numbers. You could go days without anybody getting on or off the train in those communities. You can't compare Airdrie, Olds, Innisfail, Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin and Leduc to Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres, Montreal, Kingston, Oshawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Waterloo, London and Windsor and say "Look, we have a corridor too!"
You're the one saying the lines in places like New Zealand are viable precisely because they connect to places the size of Innisfail and Lacombe, that's the whole reason I brought them up. If they're viable in New Zealand, with lower populations and longer distances, then they're viable in Alberta. BTW, Red Deer is very comparable to Oshawa and Kingston.

All I see are the romantic postings of a train spotter extrapolating any example he can find to justify a project that reflects neither a hard need or public desire. And just because something happens to exist doesn't mean it is viable, well utilizied or to be emulated.
No romance here. You asked for examples so I gave them to you. I've already shown you the amount people who travel in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor - not a lot less crowded than the Windsor-Quebec corridor, and enough to support rail. Most Canadians favour rail (http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-S08-T305.pdf), even westerners, and close to 80% support high speed rail (close to 80% of Westerners too). Clearly the public desire is there.

[Policy Wonk]

You're the one saying the lines in places like New Zealand are viable precisely because they connect to places the size of Innisfail and Lacombe, that's the whole reason I brought them up. If they're viable in New Zealand, with lower populations and longer distances, then they're viable in Alberta. BTW, Red Deer is very comparable to Oshawa and Kingston.

I said rail can be sucessful in linking smaller communities that lack air connections to one another, but that activity in and of itself has to take place along a viable corridor, you couldn't run a train between Rimbey and Ponoka and expect it to be sucessful in isolation.

No romance here. You asked for examples so I gave them to you. I've already shown you the amount people who travel in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor - not a lot less crowded than the Windsor-Quebec corridor, and enough to support rail.

I hope I misread this statement because isn't so easy to round 2,000,000 up to 15,000,000...

The examples you have provided have little to nothing in common with what is, was or might be in Alberta, which would be a high-speed or close enough train 100% dependent on traffic between Calgary and Edmonton to the exclusion of any other community or onward high-speed rail journey. People are not going to travel from Calgary to Edmonton to jump on the Canadian to Kamloops.

Most Canadians favour rail (http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-S08-T305.pdf), even westerners, and close to 80% support high speed rail (close to 80% of Westerners too). Clearly the public desire is there.

Says a poll of 1000 people commisioned by the Railway Association of Canada who would have presented the question in the most favorable light.

[kitchener-lrt]

You can't compare Airdrie, Olds, Innisfail, Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin and Leduc to Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres, Montreal, Kingston, Oshawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Waterloo, London and Windsor and say "Look, we have a corridor too!"


Waterloo doesn't get service from VIA, Kitchener does :P .

[Mister F]

I said rail can be sucessful in linking smaller communities that lack air connections to one another, but that activity in and of itself has to take place along a viable corridor, you couldn't run a train between Rimbey and Ponoka and expect it to be sucessful in isolation.
Rail only works in smaller communities if they lack airports?? You're really reaching there. Lots of the towns served by rail in New Zealand have airports, so your argument falls apart right there. Same with Vancouver Island, Ireland and even Siberia. I know you don't want to believe it but people actually choose taking the train over flying. All the time, all over the world, especially over short distances. And that's going to keep happening as the price of oil gets more volatile.

I hope I misread this statement because isn't so easy to round 2,000,000 up to 15,000,000...

The examples you have provided have little to nothing in common with what is, was or might be in Alberta, which would be a high-speed or close enough train 100% dependent on traffic between Calgary and Edmonton to the exclusion of any other community or onward high-speed rail journey. People are not going to travel from Calgary to Edmonton to jump on the Canadian to Kamloops.
You didn't misread it, you just misunderstood it. I said it was almost as congested, not almost as populated. Look at Eastern Ontario between Ottawa and Montreal. The QEII is almost as busy as the 401 and 417 combined in that area, right in between the 3 biggest cities. It's also busier than the 401 in the Windsor-London area, leading to our busiest border crossing.

Again, you're overstating the importance of those connections. And there are other connections that might work in Alberta, not just the Canadian.

Says a poll of 1000 people commisioned by the Railway Association of Canada who would have presented the question in the most favorable light.
Nanos Research is one of the biggest polling firms in the country. The questions are about as neutral as they could be. Have you read them? 1000 people is an extremely common sample size to get an acceptable margin of error and reliable results. This is basic statistics. The poll results are sound.

[Policy Wonk]

Rail only works in smaller communities if they lack airports??

Not airports, but commercial flights to other communities of some practical frequency.

You didn't misread it, you just misunderstood it. I said it was almost as congested, not almost as populated. Look at Eastern Ontario between Ottawa and Montreal. The QEII is almost as busy as the 401 and 417 combined in that area, right in between the 3 biggest cities. It's also busier than the 401 in the Windsor-London area, leading to our busiest border crossing.

And I am the one who is reaching?

Again, you're overstating the importance of those connections. And there are other connections that might work in Alberta, not just the Canadian.


Corridors and connections are what make passenger railroads viable, the larger the cachement population and the greater the number of practical destinations that can be effectively served the greater the ability of the railroad to attract passengers and recover costs. This is not a heresy or even a particularly complicated theory - this is the absolute bedrock and it applies to every form of passenger transportation from city bus to international airlines.